MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410346802 · doi:10.1080/10447318.2025.2499170

“Differences in Virtual and Physical Head Pose” Predict Cybersickness When Naturalistic Head-Movements are Made in VR

2025· article· en· W4410346802 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicVirtual Reality Applications and Impacts
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersAustralian Research Council
KeywordsHead (geology)Virtual realityOptical head-mounted displayPhysical medicine and rehabilitationComputer sciencePsychologyHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceMedicineGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When we move during virtual reality (VR) display lag produces Differences in our Virtual and Physical head pose (DVP). Research suggests that DVP can be used to predict cybersickness during head-mounted display (HMD) based VR. However, these studies always had participants make unusual (continuous oscillatory) head-movements. This study examined whether DVP also predicts cybersickness during more typical VR conditions. After assessing their susceptibility to real-world motion sickness (using the MSSQ-Revised), 67 participants repeatedly moved their heads to “target” objects that appeared inside a virtual room (under different experimentally imposed display lags). We found that cybersickness was more likely and severe when: (1) participants had higher MSSQ scores; (2) the spatial magnitudes and the detrended fluctuation analysis α values of their DVP increased. Based on these findings we believe that real-time estimates of the DVP could be used to warn users about the imminent onset of sickness during consumer HMD VR.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.736
Threshold uncertainty score0.596

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it